Thread: what is the historical evidence for jesus christ ?

the following article Debunking the Historical Jesus set me thinking : apart from the bible and the apocrypha, is there any reliable historical evidence that jesus christ existed ?

I can't say for sure. But if he died and rose again what is the evidence for saying he was not a zombie?

There were, and still are, /TONS/ of posts (mostly by me) on the subject of the bible and historical authenticity. In such posts I have included many website references, even videos. You would be wise to use the all-powerful search feature to educate yourself, rather than beating a dead horse.

After all, the topic gets tired after the first 1,542 times.

jeremy, i think you suffer from forum fatigue

still, i'll have a search when i feel like it - unless you want to supply a link ?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I can't say for sure. But if he died and rose again what is the evidence for saying he was not a zombie?

Excellent observation. Did you see 'Dawn of the Dead'? Notice the zombie in sandals? I suppose Jesus has to get work where he can. Not much job security preaching on the Mount and feeding a few hundred with bread and fish when Mcdonalds serves billions. A role as a zombie in films here and there keeps Jesus out of the money changer temples.

Originally Posted by marnixR

jeremy, i think you suffer from forum fatigue

still, i'll have a search when i feel like it - unless you want to supply a link ?

:? "forum fatigue"?

It's quite simple, just search for my username and my posts in the religious section of the forum. I warn you, however, that most of my posts are from a time when my grammar and writing style is worse. You'll have to suffer it.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...065&highlight=

I found one specific link there.

thanks - i found the following link the most useful

Indeed, that is one of the best links on the subject. There is also a video somewhere. I'll try to locate it for you.

Edits FTW: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...38653629&hl=en

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

...rather than beating a dead horse.

But...but......where else will they practice their forum-fu? :P

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

After all, the topic gets tired after the first 1,542 times.

I think you made a typo. The ",542" appears to be a mistake. Repeat topics become "dead horse" on the first repeat.

Fine, change "beating" to "beatings". though that still doesn't make sense, they've been beating it for a long time.

In the infinite universe, anything's possible. We hope that if we keep beating it, it'll wake up. (The same method applies to idiots.)

you mean to say that if you beat an idiot, s/he wakes up ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

you mean to say that if you beat an idiot, s/he wakes up ?

It's only a theory.

....If anything, it'll make you feel better.

Indeed, but occasionally the lines blurr, and the "intelligent insulter" becomes the "retard that doesn't know what he's talking about".

Hence why it's best not to throw ad-homs. You might find yourself on the excessive ad-homing end that is completely wrong.

The only reason you should do it, is once or twice when you've been through more years of research than the other has been alive (even then, it's questionable).

Edit: Yes, I know, I ruin everything. Anti-lulz am I.

the very basics of forum etiquette : head for thinking, fingers for typing
don't let the fingers get away with typing without consulting with a cool head first - a few minutes in the fridge should do the trick

Or if you're the sun-broiled head type, move to the arctic. :P

Originally Posted by marnixR

thanks - i found the following link the most useful

This source is outrageous. The lunatic who posted this has clearly not an ounce of reading comprehension. Let's just point out a couple of things that he says:

‘‘It turns out that Saul's appeal to the authority of Jesus involves precisely the same error we found in the gospel of Mark. In 1 Cor. 7:10, Saul says that "not I but the Lord, [say] that the wife should not separate from the husband." That is, a wife should not seek divorce. If Jesus had actually said what Saul implies, and what Mark 10:12 claims he said, his audience would have thought he was nuts - as the Bhagwan says - or perhaps had suffered a blow to the head. So much for the testimony of Saul. His Jesus is nothing more than the thinnest hearsay, a legendary creature which was crucified as a sacrifice, a creature almost totally lacking a biography.’’

I Corinthians is a LETTER from PAUL (who the Hell is Saul?) written to the church in Corinth. Paul says: ‘‘Not I [meaning PAUL] but the Lord...’’ Nowhere in this letter is it EVER claimed that the words are being spoken by Christ. He even contradicts his quoted source, which says: ‘‘on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered.’’ Not even his source tries to claim that Paul has claimed to be representing the words of Christ.

Next, he makes a baseless argument, trying to show that Gospel writers didn't know geography because they show Jesus went the long way around to get to the Sea of Galilee.

‘‘Another example of Mark's abysmal ignorance of Palestinian geography is found in the story he made up about Jesus traveling from Tyre on the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! Since to Sidon and back would be 40 miles, this means that the wisest of all men walked 70 miles when he could have walked only 30. Of course, one would never know all this from the King James version which - apparently completely ignoring a perfectly clear Greek text - says "Departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee..." Apparently the translators of the King James version also knew their geography. At least they knew more than did the author of Mark!’’

If Jesus truly did exist, and was truly a prophet sent from the All High, then travelling around would be a perfectly sensible thing to do, comparable to the way political figures might fly from San Francisco to Alaska to D.C. in an attempt to touch as many people as possible. The author makes the mistake that Galilee was somehow the ‘final destination’ of Jesus in this journey, simply because that is where He was reported to have performed His next miracle.

I cannot be bothered to read the rest of this senseless rubbish. I would only like to lastly point out that this is put on by American Atheists. Unlike the honest truth-seeking of the Agnostics, Atheists have a point to prove of God's non-existence as much as believers try to prove He does exist. That being said, the article is biased, not to present an honest (or even accurate) examination of the evidence, but to persuade by stacking the evidence to look as though it supports their position.

But that is enough on the hypocrisy of Atheism for the time being; maybe someone has something to say about my analysis of this source.




Regards,
Rv. Jon

Originally Posted by Jon

I Corinthians is a LETTER from PAUL (who the Hell is Saul?)

wasn't Saul Paul's name prior to his conversion to christianity ?

It turns out that Saul's appeal to the authority of Jesus involves precisely the same error we found in the gospel of Mark. In 1 Cor. 7:10, Saul says that "not I but the Lord, [say] that the wife should not separate from the husband." That is, a wife should not seek divorce. If Jesus had actually said what Saul implies, and what Mark 10:12 claims he said, his audience would have thought he was nuts - as the Bhagwan says - or perhaps had suffered a blow to the head. So much for the testimony of Saul. His Jesus is nothing more than the thinnest hearsay, a legendary creature which was crucified as a sacrifice, a creature almost totally lacking a biography.

He's quoting the Lord (Usually meaning Jesus Christ), yet other parts of the bible didn't quote him saying so. One cannot expect a human written account of events to log everything, but it quite clearly states Not I, but the Lord (Christ), say(s).

Lastly, it's quite obvious he confused the very similar names (Saul and Paul are very close to one another, are they not?). Probably confused it with King Solomon (Saul for short). I don't believe everyone is perfect, and regardless of who he claims said it, the message remains the same.

I Corinthians is a LETTER from PAUL (who the Hell is Saul?) written to the church in Corinth. Paul says: ‘‘Not I [meaning PAUL] but the Lord...’’ Nowhere in this letter is it EVER claimed that the words are being spoken by Christ.

The bible specifically calls Christ the Lord on numerous occasions. Especially the old KJV. Try not to be purposefully obtuse. Similarly, many believers call Christ the Lord even today. To say he isn't calling Christ his title (Lord) requires evidence you have not provided.

He even contradicts his quoted source, which says: ‘‘on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered.’’ Not even his source tries to claim that Paul has claimed to be representing the words of Christ.

How does this have anything to do with his argument? It's fairly self evident that Paul claimed to be representing the words of Christ by merely using his authority.

His source he obviously disagrees with (and proves so with numerous quotes) his source, and only quoted parts that fit his paradigm. I've done this myself a few times, it's not much of a crime.

If Jesus truly did exist, and was truly a prophet sent from the All High, then travelling around would be a perfectly sensible thing to do, comparable to the way political figures might fly from San Francisco to Alaska to D.C. in an attempt to touch as many people as possible. The author makes the mistake that Galilee was somehow the ‘final destination’ of Jesus in this journey, simply because that is where He was reported to have performed His next miracle.

Here you do, in fact, have a point. While you could argue it the fault of this particular writer to overlook said point, one could just as well blame the writer for not enlightening us as to what he did on that trip.

The way it was written makes it sound as though he went 70 miles for no reason whatsoever. It takes a bit of reasoning to assume he went out of his way for preaching (which is not said). So what you do, in order to make it sound reasonable, is assume that's in fact what he did.

For the sake of argument, you're merely adding into the bible what this article writer did not. His argument holds true, while yours attempts to "patch" the text so it doesn't work.

I cannot be bothered to read the rest of this senseless rubbish. I would only like to lastly point out that this is put on by American Atheists. Unlike the honest truth-seeking of the Agnostics, Atheists have a point to prove of God's non-existence as much as believers try to prove He does exist. That being said, the article is biased, not to present an honest (or even accurate) examination of the evidence, but to persuade by stacking the evidence to look as though it supports their position.

True, atheists (like myself) can be known to fits of rage that cause their written text to be rather biased. Yet that in itself is perfectly acceptable, given how much tends to enrage them.

I believe you yourself have looked upon the article with bias, instead of patience it deserves. He continues to make earnest points, although like the ones you quoted they do require some excess thinking. Which might be considered a good thing.

But that is enough on the hypocrisy of Atheism for the time being; maybe someone has something to say about my analysis of this source.

Hypocrisy? You may have pointed out the err of men wishing to strike down stupid people, but you did not point out anything hypocritical. Perhaps if this writer would have first gone at length to suggest Atheists are much more *insert here*, then began doing the opposite, you could claim hypocrisy.

What happened in this article, is an Atheist far too wound up in anger from continual illogical replies. To the point of bias being an acceptable way to vent that anger. Just as you have done here, with your anger of perceived bias from this writer.

If you do in fact point out hypocrisy, be sure that finger spins back before it is returned.